For loops are the "goto":s of the parallel programming era.
Ditch them and the rest can be handled by the programming language abstraction.
Why? Because they 1. Enforce order of execution and 2. Allow breaking computation after a certain number of iterations.
Not sure how “break” would be interpreted in this context. Maybe it should make the program crash, or it could be equivalent to “continue” (in the programming model, all of the iterations would be happening in parallel anyway).
I vaguely feel like “for” would actually have been the best English word for this construct, if we stripped out the existing programming context. I mean, if somebody post gives you instructions like:
For each postcard, sign your name and put it in an envelope
You don’t expect there to be any non-trivial dependencies between iterations, right? Although, we don’t often give each other complex programs in English, so maybe the opportunity for non-trivial dependencies just doesn’t really arise anyway…
In math, usually when you encounter “for,” it is being applied to a whole set of things without any loop dependency implied (for all x in X, x has some property). But maybe that’s just an artifact of there being less of a procedural bias in math…
For example, if you need to respond to a request in 100ms and it depends on 100 service calls, you can make 100 calls with a 80ms timeout; get 90 quick responses, including two transient errors, and immediately retry the errors; get eight more successful responses and two timeouts; and then send the response within the SLA using the 98 responses you received.
"Break" is a dependency between iterations, and really only makes sense in a sequential iteration. In a parallel for loop, you can break from the current iteration, but the next is probably already running.
If you want any iteration to be able to cancel all others, they have to be linked somehow. Giving every task a shared cancellation token might be simplest. Or you turn your for loop into a sort of task pool that intelligently herds threads in the background and can consume and relay cancellation requests.
But I agree, we need a new paradigm for parallel programming. For loops just don't cut it, despite being one of the most natrual-feeling programming concepts.
C#'s Parallel.For and ForEach are a step in the right direction, but very unergonomic and unintuitive. I think we could get by with just bolting parallelism onto for loops, but we need a fundamentally parallel concept. I assume it'd look something like cuda programming but I really don't know.
https://gfxcourses.stanford.edu/cs149/fall24/lecture/datapar...
It may be a good idea to use a framework with explicitly stateless "tasks" and an orchestrator (parallel, distributed, or both). This is what Spark, Tensorflow, Beam and others do. Those will have a "parallel for" as well, but now in addition to threads you can use remote computers as well with a configuration change.
Uhhh... we don't? It seems to me like we do. This is a solved problem. Depending on what you're trying to do, there's map, reduce, comprehensions, etc.
For example, choosing Scala on the JVM because that's what I know best, the language provides a rich set of maps, folds, etc., and the major libraries for different approaches to concurrency (futures, actors, effect systems) all provide ways to transform a collection of computations into a collection of concurrent operations.
Curious if the poster who said "we don't have a really widely supported construct" works in a language that lacks a rich concurrency ecosystem or if they want support baked into their language.
